June 5, 2008

She doesn't officially lose her delegates until they vote for someone else at the convention, so she could always jump back in. There's no paper you sign that magically waives away your delegates, and there will be plenty of them, I'd bet, who, if you ask them next week, insist they'll vote for Hillary.

So can we stop paying attention to her? I'd like to, but somebody better keep an eye on her.

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama [for what? for getting people to perceive him as the nominee?] and my support for his candidacy [if he in fact becomes the nominee? or are you conceding that he is the nominee and you are backing out?]

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise. [See previous parenthetical! She is still failing to say that he is the nominee or guaranteed the nomination.]...

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama.

Sorry, Marc. I've got to keep parsing. I still see the light shining through the unclosed door.

We hope. Its odd to say it, but I would have been okay with a Hillary victory. Obama on the otherhand, is a total fascist and will be a sore on this country's history. Thankfully our system will prevent him from implementing much of his will, and the income tax system is mostly tapped out. His speech from Tuesday explaining how this is the moment that "we" start to feed the hungary and take care of the sick made me puke. There is nothing about individual rights and powers in Obama's frame of mind. Yet individual rights is what this country is all about. Obama wants to change that. Disgraceful.

As pointed out, a concession has no meaning until after the roll call of votes.

The thought occurred to me that one of the reaons for HRC's (apparent) loss was that some of the senior democrat establishment walked away from her. It's possible that when the Clinton's have friends like James Carville, Lanny Davis, Sid Blumenthal and Harolk Ickes, AND when the Clintons were nominally in charge of the DLC, they made a lot of establishment enemies. When the crunch came, there simply weren't that many Clinton friends available to go to the mat for them.

The analogies would be the Republicans telling Nixon that he didnt have the numbers against impeachment, and the total abandonment of Elliot Spitzer when he got into trouble. Harry Truman's admonition about buying a dog nothwithstanding, you really do need friends in Washington when push comes to shove.

And if the Clinton's had any such friends, Bill's purple face fits of rage this year pretty well drove out the last remaining.

Roger, another example is when Bush, et al, let Lott twist in the wind after his off the cuff comments at Thurmond's retirement party.

As you said, one needs the support of one's party when caught up in some PR nightmare. Witness Clinton's ability to ride out the impeachment, for instance.

But in an intra-party race, I'm not sure if the same rules apply. I'm certain that Clinton had her enemies within the party, but most of them were kept in line out of fear that she would punish them if they backed Obama too early and she eventually won the nomination.

Once it became clear that Obama had racked up enough delegates, it became easier for a few more super delegates to go to his side, and that reinforced that movement.

In the end, I think that many of the supers felt that Clinton was hurting the party. And so the party pushed back.

She will do everything BUT endorse him, because she knows, and has already said, that he is not qualified to be the President.

Hillary: "In this election, we need a nominee who can pass the Commander in Chief test. Someone ready on day one to defend our country and keep our families safe. We need a president who passes that test, because the first and most solemn duty of a president of the United States is to protect and defend our nation.

"When there's a crisis, there is no time for speeches and on the job training.

"Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign.

"Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.

I think that is a significant difference."

So, Hillary has already endorsed Senator McCain, with a lifetime of experience, over Obama.

I believe that Hillary will leave it ambiguous and NOT formally concede.

Firstly, she has a huge amount of personal debt and can't retire it or redeem it from campaign funds that still remain if she concedes.

Second, she is hoping and waiting for a further Obama melt down. Given the amount of skeletons and unsavory friends that keep coming to light in Obama's past and in his present: plus with the ability of YouTube to bypass the controlling press, she probably thinks that he will continue to erode.

Third: there are many in her camp, who will not vote for Obama....period.

I agree with sloan, Obama is a fascist and communist who if given free rein would bring disaster that would last for generations on our Country. Clinton would have a much better chance in the National Election. I hope they (the dimmicrats) do chose Obama.

Obama is a fascist and communist who if given free rein would bring disaster that would last for generations on our Country

Obama's fascism is indeed perverse. His constant use of the word "we" is telling. He consistently cites collectivist actions such as World War II to support his idea that collectivism achieves great things - why not adopt it for all time to solve all of our problems....

Collectivism may be good for moments of crisis such as World War II, however we do not live in a permanent state of crisis. Normal life in America has always been based on individual freedom. Obama wants to change that.

So what you're saying is that Obama is just like Bush too! Seriously, I think you vastly underestimate the resiliency of this great country.

Bush never advocating changing the fundamental ideology of America. You are free to argue that Bush was the worst president of all time because of his policies, however, Bush carried out his policies without changing the fundamental contract that our government has with its citizens. In fact Bush went the extra mile through his conduct of the WOT to not create a permanent collective action.

Obama, however, wants to "change" that contract. Obama argues that the nation is in permanent crisis and that we need permanent collective action through the government to solve the nation's problems. This is why Obama is a true fascist.

I agree with sloan, Obama is a fascist and communist who if given free rein would bring disaster that would last for generations on our Country.

So he's a fascist and a communist? Do you know the meaning of either word?

Bush never advocating changing the fundamental ideology of America.

What, making the president above the law and creating a fourth branch of government (remember the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch) is not changing the fundamental ideology of America?

One can't help but think of McCain's appearence on SNL Weekend Update - imagine the excitement of leaving the convention and still not knowing who the nominee is!

Sloanasaurus said..."Obama is a fascist and communist"

This kind of exaggeration really isn't helpful.

"He consistently cites collectivist actions such as World War II to support his idea that collectivism achieves great things - why not adopt it for all time to solve all of our problems."

IIRC, that's more or less exactly what Hayek warned about in Road to Serfdom - that wartime planners were salivating over the prospect of continuing to plan after the abatement of the crisis. Still, while I don't think Obama's a communist, I do agree that he is dangerously in love with the idea of government-directed collective action.

What, making the president above the law and creating a fourth branch of government (remember the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch) is not changing the fundamental ideology of America?

It's not. Our government is set up to check and balance the highs and lows of power between the different branches of governemnt. This has nothing to do with the compact between the government and the people.

I never said Obama was a communist. You used the wrong quote. Communism is the state ownership of the means of production. I have never heard Obama say this. Fascism, is state (collective) control of society through regulation. Obama believes in this. Therefore he is a fascist.

MadisonMan said..."[M]aking the president above the law and creating a fourth branch of government (remember the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch) is not changing the fundamental ideology of America? To be fair -- that's not advocating change...."

Sloan, apologies - I see now that you were quoting DBQ. Nevertheless, the comment is unhelpful, whoever made it, which was the point, although I regret the misattribution (from personal experience I know how annoying that can be).

Actually, the Vice President is a part of the Executive branch (Article II of the Constitution) as well as President of the Senate (Article I, section 3). But why let facts get in the way of an unsubstantiated opinion, eh Freder?

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was). ... And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn't exist. That's a station that depends entirely on "superviewers.")

since you're not actually describing something that really happened, MM.

That was me by the way, not Madison Man. Caught you reading my posts.

Bush clearly violated the torture statute and the Treaty Against Torture by signing off on illegal interrogation methods. He also clearly ignored FISA. He has also illegally abused the classification process (how can anything a private citizen says, who is not even a U.S. citizen, be presumptively Top Secret).

Granted it was Cheney, not the president, who declared himself a fourth branch of government. But I was giving Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume he knew that Cheney was going to declare himself a branch unto himself, and approved of it.

[You were in my dream last night. You gave me the keys to a car which mildly pissed off Chris. I had no intention of driving anywhere. I asked "What do I do with them when I'm done?" You said, "Attach them to Chris's belt." Later, I needed the cab driver (foreign guy) to explain the value of each coin bearing the face of an American president. As they were all silver, the larger, thicker, heavier ones should naturally be worth more. In this, the cab driver appeared trustworthy. The dream proceeded along normal lines until eventually the usual recognizable agents of betrayal, frustration and hazard appeared, which caused me to just stop it and wake up]

In the end, I think that many of the supers felt that Clinton was hurting the party. And so the party pushed back.

Timeline is important.

After Super Tuesday, the anti-Clinton cliques' gloves were off within the Democratic establishment. But they hadn't figured Hillary would prove such a fighter and take it all the way until 3 June.

She then racked up a lot of States after that, showing up Obama's deep intra-Party vulnerabilities.

I also think, as one blogger put it, that people started having buyer's remorse after all the Obama-association scandals came out. At least, enough to have made a change possible for some.

By that time, however, another more powerful clique had formed itself, and super-delegate change was practically impossible.

This is about power politics as much, if perhaps at this stage, not more than popular politics. Because look what you said about about Clinton.

HOW is she hurting the Party, enough to prejudice the Democratic hopes in November?

She's not. Obama IS.

If he doesn't choose her as VP, there are serious doubts the greater American electorate will choose him over McCain.

So basically, the Democrats have chosen the only person who could lose the Presidency, especially if he doesn't choose her as backup; and rejected the one person who, without even selecting a VP, could win it by herself.

This is political suicide. Are they mad?

One last thing. It's no secret we Republicans want Hillary to stay in the race.

Why? Because she does our dirty work for us. I'm not claiming she was behind all the Tony Rezko/Rev. Wright/Bill Ayers "chink in the armour" fiascos. Nor, obviously, is she responsible for his appalling gaffes.

But the longer she stays, the more she fights, the more the Clinton Machine fight too, dredging up all sorts of things without McCain being in the least responsible.

Clearly, less of this would've come out since media refuse to delve into his past, damaging Obama in any way.

Hillary staying and fighting was the best thing that happened this Democratic Presidential inevitability year, for Republicans.

The Party knew it was their year, and those that hated her already, now hate her more BECAUSE of that.

So now she's dead, for the new Pro-Obama establishment.

She lives on in the hopes of the rank and file Democrat voters, now, only.

Bush clearly violated the torture statute and the Treaty Against Torture by signing off on illegal interrogation methods. He also clearly ignored FISA. He has also illegally abused the classification process (how can anything a private citizen says, who is not even a U.S. citizen, be presumptively Top Secret).

People will sorely miss the days when the President nit picked the rules to prosecute terrorists in order to preserve the most freedom for the masses.

Under Obama, there won't be any nit picking when it comes to taking away our freedoms.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush.

There is one difference. The superdelagates were put in precisely as a check against the mob which so often rears its ugly head on the left.

The Supers obviously made the decision that Obama was more electable because the black vote was more important or less likely to hold a grudge than Reagan Democrats. This remains to be seen.

Obama makes a lot about McCain being the third Bush term. In fact, it is more likely that Obama will be the third Bush term. Obama is not going to win this election by appealing to independents and being a centrist candidate as Bill Clinton did. He is going to win by getting just enough new partisan votes 50.1%. This is the same election strategy that Bush used to polarize the country for 8 years. Obama will be just another hyper partisan president - i.e. the third Bush term.

Which makes me think that would be a funny activity; posting in the style of another for a day; which in turn reminds me of Steven Wright's (from bloggingheads.tv) TED talk on the upward arrow of human society (basically seeing the world through other eyes makes humans more...humane).

Victoria--While I am, with Titus, a fellow republican and supporter of the Bush doctrine, I should point out that one of the President's rationales of going to war with Iraq was to bring democracy to the Mid East. That objective very much Wilsonian: making the world safe for democracy.

That objective very much Wilsonian: making the world safe for democracy.

I agree, Roger, but that is if you believe that was the underlying motive.

No, I'm not going to say oil, don't worry. Having read Douglas Feith's War and Decision, and immersed myself in the pro/con arguments these 5 years, there is a lot about the war that people are not even aware of. It's one of the worst hatchet jobs ever done to any American endeavour.

But even so, I think the liberation of Iraq was not a Wilsonian impulse, so much as a strategic one.

The problem with the Bush administration has always been the packaging of their ideas. For a bunch of businessman, they sure fail dismally at advertising.

But even so, I think the liberation of Iraq was not a Wilsonian impulse, so much as a strategic one.

I agree. The liberation of Iraq was for self defense. The democracy part was a benefical byproduct of engaging in self defense just as it was during World War II.

I also read War and Decision. A very serious piece of history. Right now it is the definitive book about how and why we went to war in Iraq. It is a must read for anyone who wants to know anything about it.

Simon, then maybe I'll forever be stuck at Padawan then but I'm just not sure how Iraq ever figured as a tree in the forest of the war on terror. Seems like a lot of leaves and branches got glued onto a rake to make it look like a tree.

Why did we go to war in Iraq?To impress a girl, of course.Plus, I was on a bender, and it was my Dad's car, so like I couldn't have cared less what happened to it.Damn shame about the beach front cottage, though. I had no idea that wicker stuff was so flammable.

Simon said... Sloan, apologies - I see now that you were quoting DBQ. Nevertheless, the comment is unhelpful, whoever made it, which was the point, although I regret the misattribution (from personal experience I know how annoying that can be)."

Was just the communist part unhelpful or did you think the fascist part was unhelpful too? Just curious.

Trevor: No, don't worry, I get you. However, like Simon says, there is not ONE cause to go to war, any war and sorry if I implied that. :)

Sure, in the case of Iraq we can say "to get rid of Saddam Hussein", or I can give you my own ideas.

(To strategically place ourselves physically in the heart of the Middle East for long-term geopolitical goals, since being stationed in the holiest place in Islam was no longer feasible)

None of the reasons people can give, including the negative ones, are entirely wrong, I fancy.

But the saddest legacy of Wilsonian diplomacy is that opponents use it as a critique against American foreign policy.

That is, that we cannot do anything without an altruistic reason being behind it.

Since people, including Americans, have come to expect this rationale then arguments have to be framed around lofty ideals, especially as it progresses (imminent danger becomes 'liberation', then 'democracy').

I find a world power like America having to pretend it's not a world power protecting its interests like any other world power has in the past -- especially so as to appease international injured pride, absolutely nonsensical.

In many ways, we have to thank Jefferson not Wilson for that, though:

To the meanest dirt farmer Jefferson gave the conviction that he-the American-was part of a form of civilization higher than the polished societies of Europe, with their artificial distinctions between social classes, their oppressive restrictions on human freedom, and their crushing burden of debt and taxes. That a republic so constituted should be guided in its foreign policy by the same calculations of power and expedience as animated the states of Europe was unthinkable.

I'll stop now before I start sounding like that twit, Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm who wrote as late as 2007 this article, entitled:

Another factor may be the most important: the US has been ready with the necessary combination of megalomania and messianism, derived from its revolutionary origins. Today's US is unchallengeable in its techno-military supremacy, convinced of the superiority of its social system, and, since 1989, no longer reminded - as even the greatest conquering empires always had been - that its material power has limits. Like President Wilson, today's ideologues see a model society already at work in the US: a combination of law, liberal freedoms, competitive private enterprise and regular, contested elections with universal suffrage. All that remains is to remake the world in the image of this "free society".

This idea is dangerous whistling in the dark.

Right, because Marxism was such a wonderful light-bearer to the world. We all would've been so much better if Russia had won the Cold War.

"America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall."

Ah yes, and thus must be paying for salaries and equipment and benefits by the spoils they carry away from conquered cities, entirely leaving out the need for all those Americans at the mall, and their tax money.

"Sloan, apologies - I see now that you were quoting DBQ. (Who was partially quoting Sloan) Fixed. Nevertheless, the comment is unhelpful, whoever made it, which was the point, although I regret the misattribution (from personal experience I know how annoying that can be).

I don't know about the unhelpful part. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. :-D

Ugh. George Carlin has a skit that comes to mind in regard to Pinter. It's called list of people who ought to be killed. (Also on the list is Barbara Boxer. Mere death's too good for Boxer; after her performance on the Senate floor this afternoon, she should suffer the worst fate imaginable, viz., being tied up and subjected to watching speeches by Barbara Boxer.)

Dust Bunny Queen said..."I don't know about the unhelpful part. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish."

Well, gee, the goal to accomplish, I had thought, was to defeat Obama. That goal is not helped by claims that he is a muslim / communist / fascist / etc., because when voters are confronted with a barrage of criticisms of Obama that they know are bullshit, they become less receptive to the criticisms which are not bullshit.

P.S.: Antonia Fraser is actually a wonderful lady. I've met her twice, once at a bookfair, once at an University function. I have no idea how she could be the product of Long Longford, and have fallen in love with such a bitter cont..roversy.

Football v. baseball is good, but the very best one is still the first one I ever heard - the "flying on the airlines" skit (largely because I loathe flying). I don't mind that he's a leftie - it's usually, funny, at least. As long as it's actually funny, I don't mind if comedy's ideologically athwart me, even on subjects I think are very serious and important. My favorite SNL bit ever was the weekend after Brother Alito was confirmed, and Tina Fey announced, to the effect of: "Samuel Alito was confirmed to the Supreme Court this week, so, ladies, better get that abortion while you still can. [cue cartoon whooshing noise] Amy? Amy? [camera pans out to reveal empty, slightly swinging chair where co-anchor had been]." I nearly choked on my chardonnay. Well, it was funny at the time. Of course, it's no secret that I'd give it up for a bad pun from her. :p

I find a world power like America having to pretend it's not a world power protecting its interests like any other world power has in the past -- especially so as to appease international injured pride, absolutely nonsensical.

But what are the American interests? It's not the same as other world powers in the past. Britain's interest was its global empire--to be king of the kings of the world. Spain's interest was getting rich. The USSR sought ideological influence and control.

The US, however, is a merchant nation. We don't really want an empire--too much bother. We kind of have an ideology, but it's a pretty flexible one about letting people have their own opinions. We want to make money. Not like Spain did, by bleeding regions dry, but by making other places more wealthy so we can sell them things and we can sell them things.

Being a merchant means our interests have a little "the customer is always right" about it, except when the customer is so wrong as to undermine business with others. So we appease at times, until we are pushed by broken trades and attacks on our ability to trade with others.

"But what are the American interests? It's not the same as other world powers in the past. Britain's interest was its global empire--to be king of the kings of the world. Spain's interest was getting rich. The USSR sought ideological influence and control."

First and foremost our interests are to prevent the confluence of suicide bomber-Jihadists and WMDs. Removing Saddam meant he would no longer be a potential source of the latter, even if his WMD program was in a state of suspended development in 2003.

Libya gave up its nuclear program upon Saddam's retrieval from his spidey hole, so that's a twofer.

AQ and Jihadist prestige has taken a crippling if not fatal blow to it's prestige with the Anbar awakening and subsequent defeat of AQ in Iraq, and now it looks like a similar Shia awakening is taking place in Basra and Sadr City. Iran is the big loser here and factions in Iran's parliament are starting to grow uneasy with Amadinjad's belligerence.

In short you fight the little war to avoid the big one, and at this point it seems apparent, to objective observers at least, that the Bush doctrine is in the process of being vindicated.

Naturally the usual suspects will never admit this since their hatred of George Bush has possessed their very souls. But if Iraq stabilizes and indeed provides a prosperous and attractive alternative to the terror incubating and exporting societies that the ME is prone to, then we may very well have avoided the unthinkable.

Would Obama, either deliberately, or through an act of enormous folly, allow Iraq to devolve into chaos and bloodshed that could spread throughout the ME just to be right about opposing the war? You have to at least ask yourself the question, given his repeatedly demonstrated inability to admit any error in judgment (that coupled with his thin skin and inability to laugh at himself...or even, come to think of it, laugh at all...he seems utterly devoid of a sense of humor...are classic signs of the narcissistic personality).

And if Obama is not a Fascist, what is he? Everything he says reflects a commitment to a collectivist, transnationalist ideology. He obviously sees government central planning through mandates, regulation, and rationing as the "solution" to America's and the world's problems. He wants to increase taxation and entitlements and weaken our defense. All his cohorts are Marxist and anti-American, or crooks. Nowhere does he reference the individual liberty and personal responsibility that is at the core of America's foundation and the basis for her unparalleled success.

Maybe it's unhelpful to call him a Fascist as the term is widely misappropriated, but we have to be blunt in describing his ideology and intentions as being derived more from Rousseau and Marx than from Locke, Adam Smith, and the founding fathers of America.

Our interests are stability in the Middle East, having a military presence in the Middle East, having a client in the Middle East that is not Israel or Saudi Arabia, and killing (not jailing or trying) radical Islamists.

Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state. "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State," is how Mussolini defined it. Mussolini coined the word "totalitarian" to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. It was an organic concept in which every class, every individual, was part of the larger whole.